Stand By Your Dog

Celebrating Rainbows, Reflecting on Zimmerman Verdict, and More

Thursday, July 18, 2013
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Share Article

CHASING RAINBOWS: It was ridiculously sweet pressing the flesh this Monday with all the happy hoi polloi celebrating the fact that the giant, rectangular, rainbow-colored Chromatic Gate hovering over the Cabrillo Ball Fields had just gotten a brand-new paint job. Yes, it is true that Santa Barbarans will celebrate just about anything. But there’s more to it than that. Twelve years ago ​— ​when Herbert Bayer’s famed rainbow statue got its first “new” coat of paint ​— ​there was nary a peep and certainly no poet laureate to issue forth stirring words. But this year’s event came two days after Santa Barbara’s annual gay pride bash at the beach and just two weeks after the Supreme Court all but legalized gay marriage. Given how the rainbow has become the de facto national flag for gay pride, clearly more changes were being celebrated than a few much-needed coats of paint. Movie director Mike Mills was on hand to speak about how his father Paul Mills ​— ​former director of the Santa Barbara Museum of Art ​— ​moved heaven and earth to get the Gate located in some prominent public space. Paul Mills has since become famous for coming out as gay after his wife of many years died; two years ago, his son made a movie ​— ​Beginners ​— ​about just that. But back when Mills was battling public inertia, indifference, and hostility regarding his beloved Gate, neither he nor it had come out.

Angry Poodle

Back then, the Gate was just big, bold, and beautiful. But art, like dreams, can mean whatever people need it to, and clearly, there’s much now to celebrate where rainbows are concerned. The same, however, cannot be said for the world of black and white. Last week, a Florida jury may have correctly found George Zimmerman not guilty for the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but Zimmerman was anything but innocent. A neighborhood-watch wannabe vigilante, Zimmerman went out on patrol looking for trouble. When he spotted a young black dude wearing a hoodie walking by a gated community, Zimmerman found his man. Police dispatchers instructed Zimmerman to back away and get back in his car. He chose not to. Had he done so, Zimmerman would never have triggered the chain of events that made it “necessary” to shoot Martin in self-defense. But prosecutors over-charged the case far beyond what the evidence would bear, so the verdict is what it is.

Lost in the din, however, is a recent Supreme Court ruling that promises to inflict lasting violence on basic voting rights for anyone but middle-aged white guys like me. By a 5-to-4 vote, the Supremes cut the heart out of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which, among other things, required communities with documented histories of voting discrimination to clear any proposed changes to their voting protocols with the Department of Justice first. Opining that was then and this is now, Chief Justice John Roberts declared ​— ​in a lawsuit brought by Shelby County, Alabama ​— ​times had changed but the documentation relied upon for designating communities covered by this provision was 40 years old. The facts, however, are otherwise. It’s true literacy tests are no longer used to keep black people from voting; instead, district boundaries are gerrymandered to dilute the non-white vote; at-large election schemes replace district elections because district elections are notoriously more sensitive to minority participation. Between 1982 and 2004 ​— ​a time when Roberts would have us believe racism fell asleep and has not woken up since ​— ​the Department of Justice felt compelled to reject more than 800 proposed voting-scheme changes in “covered communities” because they were deemed discriminatory in intent. Another 800 such proposals were withdrawn or altered because of similar concerns. And in more than 100 cases, the Department of Justice successfully sued to stop changes that were made without pre-clearance.

We’re not talking subtle either. In 2001, the five white councilmembers of Kilmichael, Mississippi, for example, canceled the town’s regularly scheduled election when an unprecedented number of African Americans registered to vote. Things like that. Although “covered communities” account for only 25 percent of the population, since 1982, they’ve accounted for nearly 60 percent of the voting-rights litigation, suggesting the problem may not be as firmly in the rearview mirror as we’d like to think. Lastly, it’s worth noting that 200 communities since 1984 have managed to opt out of their covered status by demonstrating they held clean, fair elections for 10 years. Alabama ​— ​where the challenge originated ​— ​may have made great strides since the good old days when cops could beat civil rights protesters with impunity and immunity, but it’s sparked the second-highest number of voting-rights infringement lawsuits from 1982-2005 of any state in the union. Even the Supreme Court was forced to issue two rulings in the 1980s smacking down schemes designed to deny black voters in Alabama equal access to the ballot box. One federal case in 1986 found no fewer than 183 Alabama cities, counties, and school districts had discriminatory voting systems in place. And more recently ​— ​in 2008 ​— ​the Shelby County community of Calera pushed a plan that would have eliminated that city’s only district with a majority of black voters. Get the picture? The paint’s not just fresh; it’s still wet. Lastly, the voting-rights act so blithely overturned by Roberts and The Supremes had only just been reauthorized by Congress and the Senate. In 2006, the Senate voted 98-to-0 in favor of reauthorization; Congress voted 390-to-33. That was back in the day they could agree on anything but keeping the filibuster alive. And they did so after holding 21 hearings and amassing a record 15,000 pages long highlighting the extent to which the bill was still needed, a fact attested to by none other than George W. Bush ​— ​whose “election” the Supremes secured by the wholesale disenfranchisement of Florida voters ​— ​when he signed it into law.

One step forward, two steps back. The rainbow’s so bright I got to wear shades.


Independent Discussion Guidelines

Even though the "police" never instructed GZ to back away; it was a police dispatcher that told GZ they did not need him to continue to follow TM, Nick go most of his analysis correct albeit there is no proof that GZ went out on patrol "looking for trouble".

The rainbow gate still looks like a sign for a paint store.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 6:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Italiansburg, there is no proof that mindreading is possible, so you are 100% correct that none of us can prove that Zimmerman was "looking for trouble". Since none of us could read Zimmerman's mind, would you care to speculate on the chances a white teenager walking home in that complex would end up shot dead by Zimmerman?

johnvasi (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Reasonable doubt, Nick. It's a legal term.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

GZ was a neighborhood watch guy with a loaded handgun. That seems like the definition of "looking for trouble."

henryjk (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Violations of voting rights can happen in any state or county or city. The Supremes shooda ruled that the same provisions for the historically violating states now shood apply to all the states.

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

An excellent false equivalence johnvasi.
If the known criminals that had been breaking and entering into these town homes had been white instead of black then pretty high I WOULD GUESS. The only proof of racism we have came from TM when he called GZ a "...cracker".
Perhaps if GZ had not been hispanic, had not taken a black girl to his high school prom, and had ANY in or out of court evidence that he was any kind of bigot then maybe your hypothetical question would have some merit.
Oh yea, it was the cops who told GZ to get a gun because one of his neighbors had been letting their pit bulls run wild in the community.
I agree with you henryjk in that while I support the right to carry there is no reason for a neighborhood watch to do anything but observe and call in. Even though the police may be ineffective you have to let them do their job unless someone mugs you or breaks into your house,

Best quote so far: "6 women decide the fate of a Hispanic male and it's still the white mans fault".

Any hey, I'm pretty damn brown myself, no, really really brown, except the box I have to check only allows me to claim that I am European, non Hispanic.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zimmerman was a marginal character before he murdered Trayvon Martin in cold blood and now he's being held up as a right wing hero, sick.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ken, what an imagination. He's no hero. The jury never said he was innocent, only that they could not find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Keep some perspective here. He's guilty of very poor judgment, that's for sure. To find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of anything elae, you'd have to be a mind reader.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GZ should have stayed in his truck.....and TM should have kept walking....

however, it is no surprise to me how quickly fox and the right immediately flocked to the side of the guy that killed the black guy.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Italiansurg: first of all, sorry for misspelling your name earlier.

If I read your conclusion correctly, you're saying that if white guys had been breaking into those units, an innocent white teenager walking to his unit could just have easily been shot dead by Zimmerman. Okay, now I see Zimmerman as a much fairer person than I thought before.

johnvasi (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Can we just stop the b@ll$hit and rename the law from "Stand your Ground" to "Get out of Jail Free"?"

-Bill Maher

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Florida has absolutely got to be the least trustworthy state: Bush, Casey Anthony and now Zimmerman. And all three child killers!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to see the same passion by gun advocates for women's rights, including what they do with their bodies. Somehow if you're born with a uterus you have less rights than a male gun owner.
And here is a Florida woman who stood her ground (yet didn't kill) but got 20 years in prison.
Wanna talk about institutionalized racism in Florida?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 18, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You seem to be a little over exited again my friend.

Nobody claimed "stand your ground" in this case. Why does it continue to be brought up since it was not brought up in court?
Am I not in complete support of abortion and women's rights?

I think folks on the left and right are sitting around looking for issues to froth over. Clearly both the gun lobby and the institutionalized black lobby did it in this situation and finally most Americans are figuring out they're both nuts.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Amid the hoopla of the Zimmerman case, I'm glad the Poodle brought attention to the Supreme Court's recent mauling of the Voting Rights Act. So few people pay attention to SCOTUS rulings (DOMA and Prop 8 were the rare exceptions) and yet they have deep and long-lasting effects.

Besides the Iraq War and all the misery that came with it (loss of life, renditions, Guantanamo, torture, cost to taxpayers) the other historical legacy of George W. Bush is going to be the installation of a Federalist/activist court with Bush's appointments of Roberts and Alito.

I wouldn't be surprised if Wade v Roe gets overturned by this court.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Nobody claimed "stand your ground" in this case. Why does it continue to be brought up since it was not brought up in court?
-- italiansurg

Because, italiansurg, it played a very important role in all stages of the case. Just after the shooting, SYG allowed Z to walk away without blood samples taken. Wouldn't you like to know what was coursing through his veins?

Second, the jury instructions explicitly cited SYG so it did play a role in the trial itself although it was not invoked directly by the prosecution or defense.

Third, jury interviews had members citing SYG as part of the rationale for their decision.

BTW, I agree with the jury finding. There was reasonable doubt about the charges so any other finding would have been inconsistent with jury instructions. Bottom line: The law was served, justice was not.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Any hey, I'm pretty damn brown myself, no, really really brown, except the box I have to check only allows me to claim that I am European, non Hispanic."
-- italiansurg

Too bad you posted that. It reveals your ignorance of the fact that culture, ethnicity, etc. determine which box you check, not how much melanin in your skin that your mommy and daddy left you with.

SezMe (anonymous profile)
July 19, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Zimmerman "triggered the chain of events that made it 'necessary' to shoot Martin." Events is events, eh? Presumably (no evidence but the timing of events), the young athlete chose to engage with the vigilant one, who had no history of randomly calling in young Af-Ams, of whom there were many in that housing development. Too bad for Trayvon that he forgot to pack his big screwdriver, or we'd have a local crime without national coverage to excite many Af-Ams and emo liberals of other persuasions.

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
July 20, 2013 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Is your reading comprehension near zero sezme(is that a rhetorical question)?
I will repeat this slowly for you this time: In spite of being "brown" I get lumped into various non Spanish"European" designations. So while I look like an identified and theoretically oppressed minority, I'm just another Caucasian. There are a ton of Hispanics that have more light Spanish blood in them but they magically get to check the box that identifies them as a targeted minority. This is the first time I remember a guy that was 50% Hispanic being disparaged for being just another white guy.

Some more statistics to round out your education sezme:
"In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.

New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics."

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 7:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@italiansurg: "New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts. Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics."

Of course, the part you conveniently leave out is that black and hispanics also make up 96% of shooting victims, and 89% of homicide victims in NYC - and that these crimes are occurring in the not-yet-gentrified neighborhoods in the outer boroughs (the Bronx and parts of Brooklyn that the hipsters haven't overrun yet).

Much like Santa Barbara, as long as minorities are quietly killing each other in neighborhoods about which no one cares, then that's perfectly fine.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SezMe is correct. Florida's SYG law was a very relevant issue for the jury:

Don't believe everything Fox News has on their agenda:

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks for the reference EB, I have read the same thing elsewhere as well. I wonder if they also discussed that the only racism appeared from TM with his ...cracker comment?

I watch neither Fox nor MSNBC.

I guess ETR proves that blacks only protest and riot when hispanics kill their racist 17 year olds?

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

stallion, you need to read up on the Million Man March and other civil black protests, it isn't just about TM, and how do you know he WAS racist?

DrDan (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Cracker" is the nicest name I can think of for Zimmerman even before he murdered Martin. And again I ask, what would you have your child do when stalked and approached by a stranger, meekly submit and then what? Get raped? Murdered? Perhaps some of you have never been followed at night by a stranger in a car or on foot?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 21, 2013 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is NO evidence that Martin chose to engage with Zimmerman - none whatsoever. Only Zimmerman's word.

From the fact that there was a difference of 1 minute between the end of the phone conversation and the gunshot, with no indication from the phone conversation of Martin going after Zimmerman, makes the claim that Martin chose to confront Zimmerman, nonsense. But that is just as much conjecture as the counter claim.

The body of Martin, as seen in the photographs, was away from the concrete and near a sprinkler system. My conclusion - there was no bashing on the concrete, but only rolling around when at various times one was on top and the other was at the bottom. Such rolling over the sprinkler system with Zimmerman at the bottom would have inflicted wounds to his head. I always thought that a few scratches from contact with concrete was not likely - I would have expected abrasions over a wider area. But that is once again conjecture on my part. There is NO evidence as to what happened. It is also my conclusion that it was Martin who was calling for help, because the cries stopped when the shot was fired. Two independent voice analysts have said that the cries were not from Zimmerman.

Now to the emotions on the left and the right.

I have heard Martin called a thug and a gang member by people on the right. There is zero evidence for that and Martin did not have a police record.

Zimmerman did have a police record.

Also, Zimmerman has been proven a liar multiple times - even before the case started, he and his wife lied about money.

For the right to call Martin a thug, when that description better fit Zimmerman, shows emotional rather than fact-based judgment.

My life's experience has taught me that in any group, there is a wide variation in temperament and emotion. No group is monolithic, and liberals tend to be less monolithic than those on the right - herding cats has been used to describe them, and "falling in line" applied to those on the right.

Thus to apply a label to any one group, is an action itself that is more emotional than fact-based. Two examples - Boehner has shown himself to be highly emotional by frequently crying - and the coolest person on the left is no drama Obama.

I watched a segment this weekend with Don Lemon discussing something with someone from the right, and Don Lemon was the epitome of calm and rational reasoning. His opponent was making claims that were basically untrue.

Statistical surveys have shown that those on the left tend to have a better grasp of facts than those on the right. Hence, emotional judgments are more likely to come from the right. But I would not label the right that way, because it would be unfair to the whole group. I am averse to blanket-judgments, because they are usually false, and also demonstrate an arrogance in dissing a whole group.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 3:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Tabatha, sounds like you agree that there was reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt.

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, did you take into account the testimony of the defense forensic expert who's testimony showed that Martin's clothing was 2-4 in. away from his body when he was shot, indicated that Martin was bent over or leaning over something or someone?

Botany (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 6:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Eeep! I think that was me who got excoriated & eviscerated by tabatha. Note I did say "presumably" M jumped Z, and I did specify emo liberals vs liberals in general. Please, calm down!

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Occasionally, someone posts a comment here that's so silly, I just can't resist responding - here's one that's "textbook":

"There is No evidence that Martin chose to engage with Zimmerman - none whatsoever. Only Zimmerman's word."

Um, duh, dur... as many others have pointed out, you don't go "hunting" for someone to "murder" while talking to a 911 operator.

Poor little "innocent" Trayvon is/was a thug. His psychotic muttering on twitter and facebook may not have been admitted into evidence at trial, but they ARE most definitely evidence that he was at least a wannabe gangsta, SO JUST GET OVER IT!

spiritwalker (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The black 17 year old was the only person in this case known to use a racial epithet. Not to mention his illiterate female friend that told P. Morgan on CNN that Trayvon was just delivering some "whuppass" on George. For gawdsakes admit that if GZ had used this type of language y'all would thing you had proof positive that this was racially motivated.
Wow DD, I need to read up on the Million Man March? Blacks slaughtering blacks every day and it's still business as usual in the hood until a Hispanic gets found not guilty. Stop the denial, admit the problem, look for a solution, stop repeating the same mistakes while we all watch black culture go down the toilet.


italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If your speaking of the young girl who Martin was on the phone with, she has a physical birth defect, which ius neither mental nor intellectual. Good move bashing the disabled.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Her underbite? That's her and your excuse?
Yes, that was the illiterate high school dropout young lady I was writing about.
She has been excused as an example of:
our failed education system;
her birth defect(?);
how whites don't care about black drop outs.

The perpetuation and expansion of lack of personal accountability does not bode well my friend.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How come only Trayvon Martin is being held accountable? because he's dead? He's not the one who was out looking to be a hero that night like that loser Zimmerman.
The only reason Zimmerman was out that night was to cause trouble. The victim only wanted candy.

The perpetuation and expansion of excusing Zimmerman and slamming the victim(s) is plain ugly at best.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you refer to GZ as a loser because he unfailingly helped his neighbors and friends, is Hispanic, was not a racist, pulled a guy from a wrecked truck last week, and could not be a cop because of his horribly poor credit report?

Or do you do this because this case was overcharged due to racism and the result was that a guy should be in jail for the equivalent of reckless endangerment/lesser manslaughter, but was instead found innocent?

Speaking of the future rocket scientist, Ms, Jeantel, I found this hysterical article:

Paula Deen, Rachel Jeantel: Twins Separated at Birth - Yahoo! Voices‎
Jul 2, 2013 - Paula Deen and Rachel Jeantel, the well-recognized female witness at the George Zimmerman trial, have everything in common. Yes, you ...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You don't think assaulting girlfrieds and police officers was what got his denial from the police academy?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check your facts and outcome KV before spreading rumors. No charge with the girlfriend, period. Alcohol diversion for the other with no charges.

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah I'm spreading rumors. Psst, Zimmerman hates kittens..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The way some people are defending Zimmerman you'd think he shot Dick Cheney's lawyer.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 22, 2013 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well here's the real story behind the "Zimmerman is a hero who saves people from auto wrecks" myth. Next?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2013 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Have you checked up on the good Samaritan story lately? Wow, the left must hate that it is true...

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2013 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Last I read the Bible, the Good Samaritan hadn't shot an unarmed child then phonied up a rescue.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 24, 2013 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but a hispanic male, we'll call him "un bueno muchacho" pulled some folks out of a wrecked car and the family is afraid to publicly thank him because of the racist and hateful rhetoric

italiansurg (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some questions to ask ourselves: If Martin had been white, and Zimmerman black, (and according to the wikipedia link Zimmerman has black ancestry--look at the man) would Al Sharpton be taking Martin's side? Also, since this case is racially charged by the media and activists, am I the only one who sees that the only evidence of racism came from Martin?

Also, for being a "Cracker"--as Martin's friend alleges Martin called Zimmerman, and for being a supposed racist, Zimmerman has an interesting history according to the following quote which is sourced in the wikipedia link:

"In early 2011, Zimmerman participated in a citizen forum at the Sanford City Hall, to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white Sanford police officer. During the meeting, Zimmerman called the behavior of officers on duty "disgusting" and detailed officers napping while on duty and refusing to take on difficult assignments.[40]"

Here is the link to Martin's alleged (according to his friend) "Cracker" quote:

Note that the sources are mainstream without known political biases; I avoid Huffington Post and Fox News citations for that reason.

None of us know what really happened that night, and what bothers me is that the same people who cry about "justice" are willing to throw a man in jail without proof. My "dog in this fight" is my long-time concern about innocent people being wrongly convicted--and I've even gone on to say--as I will now--that there could be reasonable doubts about O.J. Simpson's guilt. I realize THAT too is an unpopular opinion, but my obsession/fear is innocent people being sent away, or in some cases, executed. (Which is the reason I oppose the death penalty)

We also know that Zimmerman sustained head injuries that night, and as far as I know, the only injury Martin suffered was the gunshot that killed him. Why isn't THIS being discussed.

How will we ever know what came down that night, other than evidence suggesting that the dark-skinned
Zimmerman was attacked, and that Martin nonetheless called him a "Cracker", yet people call ZIMMERMAN the racist, and want the book thrown at him?

So is there a solution? Not to this case, but maybe we can learn something by the following suggestion: Ask yourselves why must cops, or people in Zimmerman's position only have the option of lethal force in bringing someone down? Did Zimmerman have pepper spray? If he did, why wasn't it used? If he did use it, why wasn't it reported? If he didn't have pepper spray, (or some other non-lethal alternative to a gun) why didn't he? What is the role of those who hired him in all this? Why isn't the media mentioning this?

Striking at the root isn't popular, but if we don't, more people are likely to get killed as Trayvon Martin did.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2013 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I especially like your pepper spray point BC and I would like to add vigilantism as another root issue here too. I don't think anybody disputes Zimmerman should not have even left his car.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2013 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh Trixie where art thou? T'is Thursday..

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
July 25, 2013 at 8:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: